1 Corinthians 2 is so abused

[amadeus]

All I need is your quote above..
I will show you where you are wrong but it won’t matter to you. Once I do the rest of your post can then be throne out the window.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Given by inspiration literally means. “God breathed”. All scripture was breathed out by God. So, you are wrong but you don’t care.

And you don't understand what I wrote. I agree absolutely the scriptures were written as men were inspired by God to write them. They will remain a dead message with the potential of Life until the Holy Spirit has quickened them in a person. An atheist or even a sometimes believer in God walking in a moment NOT in the Spirit will be unable to understand God's message. It is there but it is like diverse colors displayed before a blind man.

Why would you conclude that I don't care? I care as Jesus cared when the scripture reads:

"Jesus wept" John 11:35

I weep for any when God has shown me where they have missed the Way. He does not always show me that about people.

Also, I can prove that you don’t have the Spirit and are not Spiritual.
1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Paul said the things that he WROTE, WROTE were the commandments of the Lord. What does that mean? The written form we have is THE WORD OF GOD. But you don’t care. You deny it therefore you are not spiritual.

Just like you said you are right and nothing I can show you will matter.

What is proof to whom? To yourself or to other men? What use ultimately is that? The only approval that matters ultimately is God's Do you stand in God's place to render His approval or disapproval on another man? I certainly would never pretend to do that.

My friend, I readily admit that I am sometimes wrong. This is why I daily return to the "lowest room".
I have never claimed to be what you call "spiritual". I simply strive to be on the Lord's and return regularly to the "lowest room" allowing Him to do any lifting He deems appropriate. If He does not, then I am not lifted.

 

[Nancy]

And you don't understand what I wrote. I agree absolutely the scriptures were written as men were inspired by God to write them. They will remain a dead message with the potential of Life until the Holy Spirit has quickened in a person. An atheist or even a sometimes believer in God walking in a moment NOT in the Spirit will be unable to understand God's message. It is there but it is like diverse colors displayed before a blind man.

Why would you conclude that I don't care? I care as Jesus cared when the scripture reads:

"Jesus wept" John 11:35

I weep for any when God has shown me where they have missed the Way. He does not always show me that about people.


What is proof to whom? To yourself or to other men? What use ultimately is that? The only approval that matters ultimately is God's Do you stand in God's place to render His approval or disapproval on another man? I certainly would never pretend to do that.

My friend, I readily admit that I am sometimes wrong. This is why I daily return to the "lowest room".
I have never claimed to be what you call "spiritual". I simply strive to be on the Lord's and return regularly to the "lowest room" allowing Him to do any lifting He deems appropriate. If He does not, then I am not lifted.

Are not Gods commandments written on the lining of our heart now? They are not dead letters on stone that once condemned us. Jesus whittled the commandments (at least the big 10) down to two in which, if followed, you will NOT break any of the rest. Yet, He also raised the bar from OT Law, such as Lust-
Matthew 5:27
27 “You have heard that it was said,‘You shall not commit adultery.’
28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
" If anyone is angry with his brother, he has committed murder in his heart!"...
We can do NOTHING without Him, and that totally includes His Spirit. Unless of course, we do it in the flesh! Which, as we know are nothing but dirty rags to Him.
♥

 

[Earburner]

Unsaved NATURAL MAN???!!

Where did you get that pagan philosophy? Probably from the corrupt Gnostic NIV Bible translation no doubt, from Wescop and Wort, er... I mean Wescott & Hort.

Try reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense. He was an atheist. He and William James, a socialist, liked to use humanist terms like that for their philosophy. Modern Bible translations like to use them too, since those modern translations use the Wescott & Hort translation from the Alexandria, Egypt school that was influenced by Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism.

Evidently you don't read the KJV Bible!

1 Cor. 2[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[15] But he that is spiritual [born again of the Holy Spirit] judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
[16] For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[amadeus]

1 chron 28 has nothing to do with 1 Cor 13. But that doesn’t really matter now does it. Just post whatever you want as if it proves something.

Again not seeing a connection you have decided. How about leaving the unknown connections to God until a revelation is given? Do understand what it means to led by the Holy Spirit?

Yes, those in the first century only new in part. They had gifts of the Spirit because they did not have the total revealed will of God. If we want to know something today we can just look it up. Paul wrote to the Ephesians about a mystery in chapter 3. The Ephesians had gifts of the Spirit, why didn’t they know? Because revelation was still taking place. They knew in part but not in the whole. We do.

If we do, then why are we discussing our differences? You say we can look it up and we do and others do and how many different understanding are found to exist? Why? Is everyone else wrong and you are right? Is that how God works?

Yes, but the Pharisees did witness miracle after miracle. You nor anybody else I have ever been around can demonstrate any “gift” of the Spirit. I told you. I don’t need a sign to believe in Jesus. I already have all I need through his word. I do need a sign from you because you and others claim that you have them.

Believe it or not, some do have the gifts and demonstrate them. Jesus never performed a miracle simply for the benefit of a scoffer or scorner, be he Pharisee or gentile. What he and the apostles did which men may call miracles were done for the glory of God. This is so today.

You have expressed yourself truly in saying, "I do need a sign from you". Consider again the words of Jesus:

"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." John 20:29

I never said it, God did.
1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
God is the one that said he would stop operating in a certain way. So don’t put that on me. You deal with it yourself.

You have decided that that which is perfect has already come, yet you condemn anyone who is on the approach or wants to be on the approach of becoming like Him. Jesus was perfect and each of us can be like Him, but you speak as if you already were and refuse to allow anyone else to approach God. Owning a Bible can be a good thing, but owning a Bible never read or never understood has no value at all. The Bible alone were the answer all of the probably thousands of Bible readers today would be coming together in Him. If they are not, is the problem with their Bibles or with God? I would think that problem is where it has always been... in the hearts of men!

 

[bbyrd009]

Anyway, a lot got left out there, a better illustration would be gotten by reviewing the etymology for the brother who raped her which isn't coming to me, been up all night, and there certainly might be more than one good interp of Tamar's coat too i guess.

I'm on limited service, on a train, catch up to ya here in a day or so, tonight maybe

 

[amadeus]

Not to put too fine a point on it but virtually all claimers of "Christian" now are Mithraists, essentially i guess? Looking up, going up to heaven, becoming an immortal, the only real diff being i guess that Mithraism's "Greys" are now afforded entry into the Elysian Fields?

In the sense perhaps that so many are followers or worshippers of Nehushtan... People end up with Nehushtan for Jesus because they never move beyond being a baby in Christ if they were actually born again. [I won't get into that term, "born again" (or "born from above") here.]

How does one move from babyhood to teenager to adult in flesh? How does one do it in the Lord? Not be simply being present where a man is spouting scripture, not even if what he says really is the Word rather than some words he has learned to tickle someone's ears. The Word was always spoke by Jesus but was often not heard as the Word even by his closest followers when he ministers for those 3½ years in his veil of flesh. Consider Peter in this chapter:

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Matt 16:15-17

Peter was hearing there but then just a few verse later in the same chapter we read this:

From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Matt 16:21-23

The difference was not that Jesus had changed. Jesus spoke the Word both times. The difference was in Peter. In the first instance he heard what thus saith the Lord and in the second he heard only what his own carnal brain perceived.

 

[amadeus]

Well, imo everyone is different, and so might every answer be, but fwiw i did not set out to study Mithraism; i was confronted with the truth that i was a Mithraist! I never cared to discover that i was a Hegelian Thinker, but forums taught me that deterministic answers can only ever be half-right, at best.

This is like me not planning to be a Catholic. My father's family was always Pentecostal Holiness from long before I was born to my natural mother in 1943. Before I knew about it my mother divorced my father, moved from Oklahoma to California and married a Catholic. When I was 6 I was baptized according to Catholicism in water. I became the best I could be under the circumstances and knew little else. Early on and even later I never cared to know anything else [outside of Catholicism that is, but what else did I know?] Somewhere along the way God instigated something else in me. Some of what I learned as a Catholic I still believe. Is this also an example of that "half-right" you mention?

Visualizing literally walking around on twelve precious stone foundations worked just great for like 30 years, the Pearl of Great Price stayed, what, i guess "my salvation" or some other ambiguous claim for longer, etc.
not sure now what question you mean, so to this i will say that
Life, more abundantly and Death More Abundantly
simply do not mix, as near as i can tell?

they are about as close as Having Faith and Believing, or Eternal and Immortal, imo

The question was the one about spending 70 years studying any and every religion fulltime.

No Life and Death do not mix, but man tries to mix them. It's like the feet of clay and iron, is it not? How can the two really mix or possibly even blend to become one?

 

[amadeus]

ok, well for that we would have to agree on what Tamar means imo, in order to see her coat of many colors, and that is going to take a while i guess, so to just answer your Q my current understanding is that her coat reps the several, many ways that religion eats our money, and/or infringes on our free-market, more or less, all for "good."

Yes, this I think I understand. Tamar had the position. She was the establish princess, daughter of the king, the formal, traditional church or maybe member of a church wanting to do the right thing, but naive to presume that men of similar or higher positions were also always wanting the right things. Amnon was the very first born son of the king. He certainly had rights and responsibilities, but like a minister or priest or pastor in today's society he was able to and did take advantage of his position for personal reasons rather than for the good of the David's kingdom or the good of God's kingdom.

So, i was...an enthusiastic and successful pursuer of the $, lived in a free mansion that actually produced about a 1/4 million a year or so, + the extra we made from fake upkeep and fires, Bc something like $3500 a month or so just in property taxes, + payoffs to inspectors and whatnot.

Now it might seem hard or a stretch to see why Religion has anything to do with Free Market...so an example that comes to mind there is maybe Abortion, a more "morally charged" I'll say subject than housing--which i mean our housing is a crime, but nevermind that for now...

No stretch at all to see the connection.

Bc the point is really about the way the money flow shifts based upon our choices of national "morality," obviously millions of dollars are at stake even in abortion, say as opposed to no abortion and adoption, which sounds all warm and fuzzy but gives rise to child slavery, etc.

At the first perhaps only those very far removed from us [not family, not wife, not mother, not sister, etc.] would be included in the chickens waiting to be plucked of their feathers, but once one gets immune to the pain of those distant even those with closer to connections to us are not safe from us and our animal [beastly] ways. They too, it turns out to our way of thinking are also chickens after all.

So, Tamar's coat might be perceived as an unfettered free market, where i can just send Frank some heroin if he wants it and i have it, and the rape of Tamar would be all the stuff i mentioned, perhaps--or actually i guess those would be what happens when the free market is manipulated, say.

Now instead of $5 Frank has to pay me $20 for $5 worth of stuff, Bc "morals"

So then the rape is not simply the unlawful invasion of a physical woman without her consent throwing aside the covering of her father the king, but effectively doing the same thing in the realm which really is God' s...

 

[CNKW3]

WRONG!!
Every person who is literally born again by the Person of His Holy Spirit, is a NEW creature (creation) in Christ Jesus, and therefore ARE ALL Ambassadors for Christ!
.
Both God the Father and God the Son together, are the Holy Spirit of God/Christ.
John 14[23] Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode [dwelling place] with him.

Rom. 8[9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,
he is none of his.

The only place we find this idea of being ambassadors for Christ is in 2 Cor 5:20
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
I have pointed out in other post where right from the beginning of this letter we see these two different subjects. The WE and the YOU. They are different individuals. Paul uses this same language in other letters.
1 Thessalonians 1-6 (are my words and commentary)
Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, (group of men writing a church just like in 2 cor, same group of men actually)
unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers;
(The WE are praying for the YOU. The WE are the three listed above and the YOU is the church they are writing to.)

Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.
(If this difference is not so plain to see and understand then you need to go back to grade school. This is reading comp 101)

And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.
(The church became followers of Paul, Timothy, Silvanus and I believe it would include other apostles as well. Why would church become followers of them? BECASUE THEY ARE AMBASSADORS.)
I am truly baffled by the lack of understanding on this board. How people argue with basic reading comprehension.
It is just basics Bible study. When you study you need to know who is doing the talking, who the audience is and what is the context. The people I have been discussing with on this board could care less about this basic bible study principle.

 

[bbyrd009]

Is this also an example of that "half-right" you mention?

hmm well tbh i had something else in mind, namely those who have not eaten what is it yet, but an individual Catholic might certainly be a Hegelian/determinist too, sure. I guess like any group, prolly most of them are?

The question was the one about spending 70 years studying any and every religion fulltime.

ah, ya, that strikes me as always studying but never coming to knowledge personally, tho i guess some might be called to that? Or maybe there is a time for everything, even periods of that? And imo when one finds themselves in an Empire in Decline/Decadence, might be a time for that, dunno.

 

[Earburner]

The only place we find this idea of being ambassadors for Christ is in 2 Cor 5:20
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
I have pointed out in other post where right from the beginning of this letter we see these two different subjects. The WE and the YOU. They are different individuals. Paul uses this same language in other letters.
1 Thessalonians 1-6 (are my words and commentary)
Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, (group of men writing a church just like in 2 cor, same group of men actually)
unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers;
(The WE are praying for the YOU. The WE are the three listed above and the YOU is the church they are writing to.)

Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.
(If this difference is not so plain to see and understand then you need to go back to grade school. This is reading comp 101)

And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.
(The church became followers of Paul, Timothy, Silvanus and I believe it would include other apostles as well. Why would church become followers of them? BECASUE THEY ARE AMBASSADORS.)
I am truly baffled by the lack of understanding on this board. How people argue with basic reading comprehension.
It is just basics Bible study. When you study you need to know who is doing the talking, who the audience is and what is the context. The people I have been discussing with on this board could care less about this basic bible study principle.

Sorry to say that you STILL don't understand!!
The Holy Spirit of God is not within you, because if He was, you would comprehend that simple tenant of faith.
You may be a believer in Christ, but "the power of his Holy Spirit" is NOT teaching and guiding you. Something else is, and that would be solely by your logical and analytical "natural" mind, scouring the Word of God, through your denominational teaching.
I am thinking that are JW or SDA.

 

[CNKW3]

Well, so you say...

So, I guess when Paul and Timothy were writing the church in Thesalonica like they did in Corinth...
1 Thessalonians 1:6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.
Using your understanding the church didn’t become followers of Paul and timothy they became followers of themselves since they are all the same. I wonder....why would the church become followers of those guys? Maybe it is because they are AMBASSADORS for Christ. Did you ever think of that?
I don’t know why people have such an issue with this. We can’t all be everything for Christ. We are definitely not apostles. Why do we have to be ambassadors? Peter was an elder but Paul wasn’t. Do you think it really bothered him because Paul could not be an elder (since he wasn’t married). I doubt it. He just worked in the role he was able to work in.

 

[Earburner]

Correction:
I am thinking that you are JW or SDA.

 

[bbyrd009]

Joseph's coat was a special gift from his father, which stirred up, to put it mildly, the animosity of his brothers, who were also sons of the same father. An early example of sibling rivalry and/or jealousy.

Tamar on the other hand wore her garment it apparently because she was a daughter of the King, King David.

Joseph was sold as a slave. Tamar was raped by her own brother. Each one had a special covering garment which became defiled. They both were of diverse colors. Does this speak of the rainbow God displayed after the great flood in the time of Noah? Did not God say, "never again" such a destruction by flood?

yes, nice, only "flood" and "rainbow" aren't well defined, even if "coat" is pretty obvious....so, Amnon ("Faithful") rapes Tamar, "Palm Tree/free exchange" which might easily be spiritual free exchange also, and now i could present a whole diff scenario i guess, wherein we "Christians" practically speaking cannot even really talk about Life, more abundantly anymore imo, see, Bc Tamar has been "raped" so to speak, by "Faithful," and her coat ruined or destroyed or whatever

 

[bbyrd009]

Using your understanding the church didn’t become followers of Paul and timothy they became followers of themselves since they are all the same. I wonder....why would the church become followers of those guys? Maybe it is because they are AMBASSADORS for Christ. Did you ever think of that?

ah well sure, until i read...ha, 1Cor1 and 3, "some of you are saying 'I follow Paul, I follow Cephas, I follow Christ" etc, and got the sense there. So, really just a different (better) perspective is gained, the more we mature maybe? Doesn't make your perspective wrong imo, i follow Paul, i follow Cephas, and i doubt i would be called an "apostle" by anyone. When that stuff starts i usually split lol

Am i an ambassador, certainly; am i an apostle i dunno there, wasn't planning to be, sounds like a full-time thing...but i am finding myself having gone out in the way of the 70 and now going out in the way of the 12, sold my robe, etc, but i gotta say i didn't like plan any of this or anything, might even be seeing gratuitous parallels or something, learned to go by what other ppl are saying, particularly little kids or off-hand remarks by adults, and what comes by hear-say, etc

 

[Nancy]

Anyway, a lot got left out there, a better illustration would be gotten by reviewing the etymology for the brother who raped her which isn't coming to me, been up all night, and there certainly might be more than one good interp of Tamar's coat too i guess.

I'm on limited service, on a train, catch up to ya here in a day or so, tonight maybe

Rest up..

 

[Nancy]

The only place we find this idea of being ambassadors for Christ is in 2 Cor 5:20
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
I have pointed out in other post where right from the beginning of this letter we see these two different subjects. The WE and the YOU. They are different individuals. Paul uses this same language in other letters.
1 Thessalonians 1-6 (are my words and commentary)
Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, (group of men writing a church just like in 2 cor, same group of men actually)
unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers;
(The WE are praying for the YOU. The WE are the three listed above and the YOU is the church they are writing to.)

Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.
(If this difference is not so plain to see and understand then you need to go back to grade school. This is reading comp 101)

And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.
(The church became followers of Paul, Timothy, Silvanus and I believe it would include other apostles as well. Why would church become followers of them? BECASUE THEY ARE AMBASSADORS.)
I am truly baffled by the lack of understanding on this board. How people argue with basic reading comprehension.
It is just basics Bible study. When you study you need to know who is doing the talking, who the audience is and what is the context. The people I have been discussing with on this board could care less about this basic bible study principle.

Hi CNKW,
I was wondering if you were on any other Christian forums, because you said "I am truly baffled by the lack of understanding on this board. How people argue with basic reading comprehension."
Which, causes me to believe that you have other forums to compare this one to thet, mostly agrees with what you are saying on this forum? Sorry about the run-on question, lol.

 

[amadeus]

Are not Gods commandments written on the lining of our heart now? They are not dead letters on stone that once condemned us.

The writing on our heart occurs as we eat His flesh and drink His blood but at the discretion of the Holy Spirit within us as we are submitted to whatever God's needs are at the moment. Jesus was the Word of God which means it was all always in Him. We are to become like Him, but it is a process which moves forward as we allow it and as God accomplishes it within us. Each and every time we quench the Spirit of God in us, we delay the process. God cannot work in us anytime we remove our consent. This is our free will: The ability to at anytime quench the very Spirit of God in us... or not. People should not ever choose mammon instead of God, but we know
from our own experience with ourselves that we do.

We read the Bible faithfully and we surrender fully to God in us and He does the work needed while it is day... but night is coming when no man can work. When we quench the Holy Spirit, we are in darkness and without Light it is night...

Jesus whittled the commandments (at least the big 10) down to two in which, if followed, you will NOT break any of the rest. Yet, He also raised the bar from OT Law, such as Lust-

Matthew 5:27
27 “You have heard that it was said,‘You shall not commit adultery.’
28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
" If anyone is angry with his brother, he has committed murder in his heart!"...
We can do NOTHING without Him, and that totally includes His Spirit. Unless of course, we do it in the flesh! Which, as we know are nothing but dirty rags to Him.
♥

Jesus strived to make it understandable in human terms with the statement of the two greatest commandment. It still, I believe, requires interpretation on moment by moment connection with Him.

"If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God." I Cor 14:27-28

The "church" is not here a building full of people supposedly gathered together to worship God. It is the two of three gathered together in his name [in the Spirit]

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matt 18:20

The only interpreter definitely needed is the Holy Spirt interpreting what is written on paper in what we called the Bible or scriptures. Sometimes God may provide the message through the Holy Spirit in one person message and in another an interpretation, but it can all be done in me or in you or in anyone available for God's work at the needed moment. Not my will but Thine!

 

[bbyrd009]

I don’t know why people have such an issue with this. We can’t all be everything for Christ. We are definitely not apostles. Why do we have to be ambassadors? Peter was an elder but Paul wasn’t. Do you think it really bothered him because Paul could not be an elder (since he wasn’t married). I doubt it. He just worked in the role he was able to work in.

wadr you are a Hegelian thinker still, ok, "either/or," no in between, determined if i may say so to extract a Fact so that You May Know, and thus be perceived as a Leader, etc.

So, "Peter was an elder," by which you infer the same def of "elder" we have, from the same def of "Church" we have now too, right, "church" to you means that mortgaged building with the guy signed a 501c3, a Contract for Jesus, all leading y'all in choruses of When We All Get to Heaven, yes?

When wadr that is not what "church" means at all imo, not even a little bit, even if some Church members in there i guess. Now does this make your pov "wrong?" Or am i wrong? Which one? See, the Q becomes irrelevant, there is no AT correct answer, Bc you cannot state a single AT from Scripture that i cannot refute from Scripture, as that is the nature of Truth.
"What is currently true will shortly be false," and all that maybe

 

[bbyrd009]

I don’t know why people have such an issue with this.

Just accept that everything i tell you without exception is the absolute truth and you'll be fine ok

that's why prolly